First up Marie Taillard. Marie challenges us to look beyond the enterprise to the ecosystem. Where is the value in the ecosystem? Where is your customer at? Are we - at the summit - focusing enough on the customer? Internal and external can and should help each other.

Then Peter Vander Auwera about 'Corporate Rebels United, the start of a corporate spring?'. Our orgs no longer serve our needs. They cannot keep pace with the current world. Corporate rebels wants to address this. They love the organizations they work for and address the issues in the organization from a deep personal conviction.

21st century practices of new orgs according to corporate rebels:

organizational structure

leadingship

strategic options portfolio

decision making

lean execution

system innovation

self-expression

And Dion Hinchclliffe has the honor to close the conference. His talk is about 'Frameworks for Next-Gen Organizational Structure'.

Dion points to the large study done by McKinsey for proof that enterprise 2.0/social business is real. But most organizations (96%) are doing internal and external social business efforts distinct from each other. This is strange between internal and external are so connected.

Dion warns us to be careful with blueprints. People and organizations are unique, the way social business will work for them will be different as well.

Your social business team will never be big enough. Organize internal and external transformation, like advocate program. Because the network will always be bigger.

Dion shares his framework for social business, the importance of community management (relating to Rachel Happe's model), and (technical) standards. (I'll insert links later.)

There's a broad pattern in frameworks for next-gen orgs emerging:

decentralization

user-control

need to cope with constant change

adaptive processes

local autonomy

And that wraps up another great Enterprise 2.0 Summit! I'll write an overview blogpost in a couple of days, sharing my highlights and insights from the conference. Now, off to drinks! :-)

Popular posts

This tweet by Jonathan Phillips (@digitaljonathan) triggered to finalize this post, that's been burning in my draft box.
I've always been intrigued by how unsuccessful many intranets are. And there are all kinds of good reasons for intranet failure. One of the things that is hardly ever mentioned is: Shouldn't the intranet be smaller?
Usually intranets are huge. Lots and lots of pages with lots and lots of content. With complex navigation. The intranet evaluation surveys almost always show employees only use the news page and people finder. But still we build and maintain nice big intranets.

Not only stats point to smaller intranets. There are others reasons as well. I came up with a few. If you have more, just leave a comment. Here's my list:

-user requirements: users don't require large intranet -search/navigation: searching and navigating a small intranet is easier than in a large intranet -mobile: the content of the intranet is easier to take with you on mobile d…

There's not too much fundamental research on Enterprise 2.0. Deloitte recently published interesting research done on enterprise 2.0 implementations and their return-on-investment. In the EU research has also done as well. Study is being done for the European Commission and it was carried out by Tech4i2, IDC and Headshift. What was the goal of the study?Goals of the studyTo provide a clear definition of Enterprise 2.0 is, describe the market and the positioning of EU industry, also in comparison with US and Asia;To analyze the take-up of Enterprise 2.0, the organizational requirements, and the role on the transition to a knowledge based low-carbon economy;To collect evidence on its macro-economic impact, as a market opportunity for the European Software industry and as a productivity tool for European business;To identify and analyse both the direct and contextual challenges, including the need for Next Generation Access and the legal barriers;To analyse and propose possible poli…

I love reading articles about innovation. And every now and then you read one that is very interesting. "Innovation in Turbulent Times" by Rigby, Gruver, Allen (in HBR, June 2009) is one of them.This article takes fashion companies as an example for continuous, year-by-year innovation. And how successful fashion companies are usually led by two people: a left-brainer and a right-brainer. "If you don't have highly creative people in positions of real authority, you won't get innovation. Most companies in other industries ignore this lesson."They extend this to show that successful non-fashion companies have the same kind of leadership. And this kind of leadership is usually also characterized by a long-term relationship.I think this concept can also be extended to teams and projects as well. More often than not, people are good at one or the other: thinking up great concepts or ideas, or, making them. In teams and projects we can learn from this as well, an…